There is nothing that I love more than discovering that our friends from the left have been caught with their hands down the trousers of children, hang on let me clarify that, I detest the abuse in fact there is nothing more abhorrent to me but I certainly do love it when the naive maleficence of the left is revealed. I had great joy in the discovery of the way that the prototype of the Australian Greens endorsed paedophilia and a very spirited debate in the comment thread. Any how it seems that another element of the left has been caught out flirting with nonces, this time its elements of the left wing of the British Labor party:
But how did the Paedophile Information Exchange (PIE), whose affiliation to the NCCL has been exhaustively investigated by the Daily Mail, come to get a ticket to the party?
“It was an extraordinarily liberal period,” said Harry Fletcher, a criminal justice expert who at the time was the senior social worker for the National Council for One Parent Families. “The abortion laws had come in and capital punishment had been abolished.” People were pushing at every boundary – sexual, moral, legal. Fletcher recalled how the groups would spend hours debating whether the NCCL, which became the campaign group Liberty, should defend the right of someone with racist or homophobic views to express themselves. The discussion about defending the National Front’s right to march went on for months.
But by far the most divisive topic centred on the lowering of the age of consent. Many on the left thought that criminalising sexual behaviour between consenting teenagers was misguided and wanted it lowered to 14, a proposal endorsed by the NCCL’s executive committee. Others, like Fletcher, felt such a move would give a licence to older men to prey on young girls. Into this permissive climate crept the PIE, a group that actively promoted sex between children and adults and that was allowed not only to affiliate to the NCCL (in return for paying a £15 subscription) but enjoyed considerable recognition and support for its right to speak out on such issues.
The group inveigled itself so successfully into the NCCL that, as reported in the May 1978 edition of its magazine MagPIE, the council’s annual meeting passed a motion in support of PIE’s rights. Motion 39 stated: “This AGM reaffirms the right of free discussion and freedom to hold meetings for all organisations and individuals doing so within the law. Accordingly, whilst reaffirming the NCCL policy on the age of consent and the rights of children; particularly the need to protect those of prepubertal age, this AGM condemns the physical and other attacks on those who have discussed or attempted to discuss paedophilia, and reaffirms the NCCL’s condemnation of harassment and unlawful attacks on such persons.”
That motion was passed two years after Harman has claimed that the group no longer wielded influence in the NCCL. “They had been pushed to the margins before I actually went to NCCL and to allege that I was involved in collusion with paedophilia or apologising for paedophilia is quite wrong and is a smear,” she told the BBC last week. She said her husband had successfully fought to stop PIE having any influence in the NCCL in 1976 – two years before she joined as its legal officer.
Admittedly, any group could join the NCCL, which had more than 1,000 affiliate member organisations and the council’s motion probably owed more to defending the principle of free speech than defending PIE. And it would be wrong to portray PIE as a major force. Being small, comprising only a handful of activists and with a membership estimated to be between 300 and 1,000, PIE was not a powerful voice at a time when the main debates within the council were about sexual equality and race relations. But its views were so profoundly abhorrent to most of Britain that it is still hard to see why the council did not do more to disown PIE from the start.
What I find most darkly amusing about the report from the Guardian that I quote from is the headline “How paedophiles infiltrated the left and hijacked the fight for civil rights” there was clearly nothing covert at all about the creeps from PIE joining the NCCL they were entirely open about their beliefs and their desire to make their perversion more socially acceptable. there was therefore no infiltration, they asked to join and they were welcomed. That is what makes these minions of the left so culpable now. Eventually PIE were shunned by the NCCL but the shame of the left was that they were ever allowed to have the supposed respectability of membership in the first place.
Am I the only one who sees a pattern here? The prototype of the Greens endorses paedophilia, the British Labor party is complicit in endorsing PIE so it seems to me be in the DNA of the left to accept any expression of abnormal sexuality . Can it be that the far left (and maybe those further from the extreme as well) might just have some equally vile skeletons in their collective closets? OK that is enough Schardenfreude for this morning I realise taht the Australian left are of course just that little bit better than its European precursors but then again they don’t have much to say about followers of Islam who take the life of the Prophet as their template to “marry” pre-pubescent girls do they? Hmm maybe they are not that much better after all…
I tend to think that at the minions of the far left will be having a sort of electric orgasm of sorts with the revelation that the NSA has been monitoring the internet, and phone numbers called. Well all I can say is “big farking deal” its utterly beyond being any sort of threat to anyone’s personal liberty. The reason that I am so indifferent it is simply a mater of the scale of the number of transactions by both phone and over the internet; its just so big that no agency has the manpower to watch each and every one of the people who use modern communications technology.
As for the chap who has outed himself as the source of this story why do I smell the distinct odour of the self-immolation here? What is it with younger people not respecting the oaths that they agree to when they join the likes of the military or the NSA? Are we truly living in an age when oaths mean nothing at all? Are these solemn promises not properly considered by the likes of Bradley Manning and Ed Snowdon? Oh I am sure that Snowdon like Manning will become darlings of the conspiracy theory nutters and the far left but what their treachery really shows us is the anarchy of internationalism. You see last night I actually stayed up and watched the interview with Julian Assauge where he conceded that information that he published from Manning was of use to the likes of the (thankfully) late Osama bin Laden and he was utterly indifferent to that reality. Like so many of his ilk he is indifferent to the the larger implications of his behaviour. Frankly I think hope that he spends many years locked up, either in that tiny room in the Ecuadorian embassy or in a jail cell. The man is clearly an utter egomaniac and nothing more than the leader of a rather seedy secular cult.
Ah yes who could miss Gillard insisting that under Abbott women won’t be allowed to kill their unborn children with impunity as they can now do. Heaven in a hand basket have you ever seen such desperate nonsense? The woman is utterly deranged with her brain stuck very firmly into bullshit mode and worse yet she seems to be entirely lacking in any sense of the dignity of the office she currently holds. Then again its hardly surprising when she has Brother Number One snapping at her heels, generally I detest Mark Latham but I tend to think that there is more than a speck of truth in his claims on Q&A that Rudd is on a revenge mission and doing his darnedest to ensure that Gillard’s government has the hardest possible fall from what little grace that she has left. If he manages to achieve that then history will judge her far more harshly than it judges Brother Number One. I think that at this point Rudd does not even care about being reinstated , the entire point of his behaviour is to humiliate Gillard. I am reminded of an anecdote told to me by my late father where he reminded me that with in the ALP the real political fight is for dominance within the party rather than electoral success out side of it and the current party is a perfect example of this adage.
All the while a mood of utter despondency has set in among the lefty luvvies they too have given up on there being any sort of good showing from Labor, its almost as if they are beginning the Post mortem on the body of the Gillard government even though it is technically still alive . However the body of Labor is so diseased that it won’t even be considered for organ donation .
Apologies for the rambling nature of the post this morning its wet and more than a bit miserable here today…
Hmm I think that calls for Bacon and eggs for a well deserved breaking of my fast.
Equal opportunity in education regardless of gender does not require equal numbers from each gender into science and mathematics
Pieces like this one which headlines today’s Brisbane Times and they usually take the same approach of suggesting that it is some sort of social tragedy if we can’t get more girls to study science to the nth degree. I think that this is a reflection of an unrealistic feminist dogma. Simply put this brand of Feminist thinking argues that unless women filling half of the places in every profession then the patriarchy is still dominating our society. Its the stuff of nonsense because it assumes that men and women are precisely the same in the way that their brains are “wired” and that women and men all have the same proclivities for subjects such as science and mathematics.
Ah do I hear you thinking “Iain Hall is a dinosaur who thinks women are lesser creatures”? well that is not the case at all but I think that feminists like Natalie Bochenski should be contented with the fact that those women and girls who want to devote themselves to science can do just as the boys and men in our society who want to be the primary care givers for their children can follow that path. As I see it the important thing here is that individuals can choose their own path with their choices unrestricted by the contents of their underpants. We have got to that stage in our society and I for one am very grateful that my daughter could be anything she pleases, in this country there is no profession that a woman is excluded from because of her gender. That is how it should be. However we should likewise not be concerned if young women choose not to do science or engineering. Just as we should not be concerned if our young men want to go into professions traditionally the preserve of women, like early childhood teaching or nursing do not do so in the same numbers as women do.
In an ideal society we should encourage all individuals to play to their strengths free of the ideological preconceptions of feminist dogma and while I will happily cheer and endorse the women who succeed in science and mathematics I won’t lament that they are a minority of their gender and frankly those who do are being utterly stupid.
Just a quickie this morning and it concerns the Faux rancour being produced by Penny Wong over the the claim from the Australian Christian Lobby that Gay marriage could lead to a new stolen generation:
Obviously when it comes to Same sex couples making children there has to be the intervention of a third party to supply the gametes that are necessary for conception and this means that any child thus created is going to be, to a greater or lesser extent, alienated from one half of their biological heritage. There is a great deal of evidence that most children who are adopted or created by donor insemination suffer a great deal of angst about who their missing biological parent is. Enlightened Gay parents should be aware of this issue but as homosexuals are just like everyone else in their diversity I expect that there will be a variety of way that this issue will be felt with from the pretence that the children they create are theirs alone to total openness about who the absent biological parent is and even some sort of continuing involvement of that person in the life of the children thus conceived. Only time will tell if this becomes a real problem and I hope that those who make children with the “help” of people outside their pair bond do the right thing by the children they make and that they keep their persona vanity in check.
On the issue of teaching the mechanics of “gay sex” in schools I am hardly surprised and I certainly expect that if we are going to become an even more liberal society that considers homosexuality as just another page in the book of human sexual expression that we will at some point have to make its practice part of the lexicon of sex education. Now in the past I have made jokes about “buggery 101” being taught to our children but if we are to “normalise” homosexuality in our society then we won’t be able to make the mechanics of sex between people of the same gender “Secret Gay business”. In any event I very much doubt that any same sex attracted young person won’t have seen enough online pornography before they attend sex Ed classes to know the basics anyway.
So on balance I think the ACL and Wong are each partially right the former are correct to be concerned about the children created in same sex unions being alienated from one of their biological parents, but they are wrong to be absolutely horrified that our children might have the mechanics of gay sex discussed in our schools. The latter is wrong to dismiss concerns about the children like the one that she and her partner are nurturing as nonsense.The thing that we must ensure above all when it comes to Sex education is that anything that children are told is entirely age appropriate and that no matter what nut and bolt stuff they are taught it is essential that such things are accompanied by some exploration of the value of enduring pair bonds over sex being just another sport devoid of a reproductive or social purpose.
I find it sadly amusing that those from your end of the political spectrum who are so uptight about Christianity are so afraid of any criticism of Islam, especially when you consider how antithetical Islam is to so many aspects of modern society that you champion, things like homosexuality and Gay marriage, the equality of women, tolerance of religious diversity are all soundly denounced by both Islamic scripture and contemporary Islamic scholars and Imams. Add to that rampant Anti-Semitism, intimidation of those criticise or lampoon the faith and dreams of Jihad and there is a great deal that any progressive should be willing to criticise. That those like yourself are scared of anyone, like Geert Wilders who tells it like it is and points out the folly of ignoring the implications of Islam in our societies suggest that the cleansing effect of sunshine needs to be shone upon both Islam and those who are so willing to be its apologists and enablers.
I come back to the computer after a lay down and find that Mike has not only deleted the post that I re-blogged but the entire content of his blog!
The only post there now is this:
Yeah, no, sorry, it’s just too painful/stressful/aggravating to write about Australian politics. Solidly European stuff now. Anything even vaguely political will be on The Drum/The Punch/National Times.
My oh My how is that for Lefty cowardice?
- Geert Wilders’ speaking tour (iainhall.wordpress.com)
- (Weekend documentary) Islam Rising: The Call To One World Ummah (Dominion) (themuslimissue.wordpress.com)
- Geert Wilders Down Under: Fear doesn’t need a visa, and it’s on tour already (1389blog.com)
- “If [Muslims] Had Gotten Rid of the Punishment for Apostasy, Islam Would Not Exist Today” (themuslimissue.wordpress.com)